The idea that a prime minister, or even a president, is the "steward of the economy" is a convenient bit of fiction, Neil Macdonald writes. These days, central bankers like Janet Yellen and Canada's Stephen Poloz are the ones calling the shots.
Canada is not enjoying the sort of recovery going on in the States. Unemployment is much higher here.
It's a tough call. But so far, Poloz has stuck to a stimulative policy, the classic solution in a time of sluggish growth and excess capacity.
Not the current federal government, though. In order to be able to declare that he has finally run a surplus, which it turns out he did last fiscal year, Harper has effectively begun a government austerity program.
It's known as "lapsed spending." The government discourages federal departments from spending the money it allocated to them in the budget, obliging them instead to return $9 billion last year to general revenues.
In other words, the Conservative government has cut government spending during a stagnant, if not recessionary economy.
In fact, Harper's obsession with running surpluses (perhaps understandable after six consecutive deficits) is probably at least one reason Poloz has to keep interest rates where they are.
"Poloz has his foot on the accelerator, because Harper has his foot on the brake," says Prof. Christopher Ragan, a specialist in monetary policy at McGill University.
"From an economic point of view," says Ragan, running a surplus at a time like this in order to make a political statement "is exactly the wrong thing to be doing."
Only in Canada, eh.
If that lapsed spending had been spent, Harper would have had a 7.5 billion deficit last year.
Lapsed spending is not new to the Conservative government. Paul Martin's last year in office showed a 4-5% lapse in spending on Veterans. It never made the news.
So what. that was then, this is now. As the article makes clear, the govt bringing in austerity by under-spending the budget and being so focused on no deficit, while the BOC has the pedal to the metal with low interest rates makes no sense. The BOC is doing its best to stimulate the economy, which is not doing great (Harper finally admitted it during the debate) while Harper is more concerned about the politics of no deficit for the black and white thinkers. As the economist quoted says, it's exactly the wrong thing to be doing. Can't speak to what was happening in the economy when the Liberals did it, but we certainly didn't have such low interest rates at the time. And the Liberals did it toooooo is about as poor a reason to elect the Cons as there is. Well except for all the attacks on democracy and all.
On CBC, Harper has just acknowledged the economy is not doing well and the forcast is for worse to come. So those who are so sure the next two quarters will show we are out of recession, you may not want to count your chickens.
It's a tough call. But so far, Poloz has stuck to a stimulative policy, the classic solution in a time of sluggish growth and excess capacity.
Not the current federal government, though. In order to be able to declare that he has finally run a surplus, which it turns out he did last fiscal year, Harper has effectively begun a government austerity program.
It's known as "lapsed spending." The government discourages federal departments from spending the money it allocated to them in the budget, obliging them instead to return $9 billion last year to general revenues.
In other words, the Conservative government has cut government spending during a stagnant, if not recessionary economy.
In fact, Harper's obsession with running surpluses (perhaps understandable after six consecutive deficits) is probably at least one reason Poloz has to keep interest rates where they are.
"Poloz has his foot on the accelerator, because Harper has his foot on the brake," says Prof. Christopher Ragan, a specialist in monetary policy at McGill University.
"From an economic point of view," says Ragan, running a surplus at a time like this in order to make a political statement "is exactly the wrong thing to be doing."
Only in Canada, eh.
If that lapsed spending had been spent, Harper would have had a 7.5 billion deficit last year.